Thread Tools

Tonight the temperature in Providence is 26 degrees in the middle of January ... and it's a huge leadoff story. How does this relate to world politics? Very easily ... they make stories out of non stories with the aim of creating passion for future stories ... democracy captured.

LOL ... they just cam back to tell us that we should drive our car briefly during the night when the weather is cold. :rofl: bunch of people driving around in pajamas, thongs, topless, nude , in onesies, flap on the bum pajamas....no wonder why the world thinks we are crazy ... they read this crap without ever knowing us.

it's local news... that's what they do: talk about local stories... tell us, how would you present news according to FBN?

i mean, It's finally cold, there's a threat of the first snow...

i don't really see how this is "All you Ever Need to Know About the Media"

Click to expand...

I think FBN is referring to how the media makes a non-story into a story. This is something like, "The sun will rise today, isn't that amazing? Ordinary events are blown out of proportion when there is no news. Lots of times the big story in the media is about the media like with Katie Couric getting a new job. It's the crescendo of post-modernism in our lifetime, and there seems to be no limit on this crap. I'd love to hear them say, just once, "Sorry folks, there's no news tonight!"

I think FBN is referring to how the media makes a non-story into a story. This is something like, "The sun will rise today, isn't that amazing? Ordinary events are blown out of proportion when there is no news. Lots of times the big story in the media is about the media like with Katie Couric getting a new job. It's the crescendo of post-modernism in our lifetime, and there seems to be no limit on this crap. I'd love to hear them say, just once, "Sorry folks, there's no news tonight!"

Click to expand...

:yeahthat: These media types have salaries that they have to justify, no matter what. It would be better for them to just get paid for saying nothing -- which is what they do, say inane stupid things, so often.

As the editors of the Washington Post said during the early stages of the Watergate BS, before it grew legs: "Well, if the public doesn't buy our story, looks like we'll all have to go out and get REAL JOBS." Sums it up very well. They know what they peddle most of the time is just filler, only stuff to justify their pay-check.

:yeahthat: These media types have salaries that they have to justify, no matter what. It would be better for them to just get paid for saying nothing -- which is what they do, say inane stupid things, so often.

As the editors of the Washington Post said during the early stages of the Watergate BS, before it grew legs: "Well, if the public doesn't buy our story, looks like we'll all have to go out and get REAL JOBS." Sums it up very well. They know what they peddle most of the time is just filler, only stuff to justify their pay-check.

//

Click to expand...

Justify their paycheck even? How sanctimonious... What do you do, exactly?

You'd probably be much happier in a world without free press, wouldn't you Foggy?

I think FBN is referring to how the media makes a non-story into a story. This is something like, "The sun will rise today, isn't that amazing? Ordinary events are blown out of proportion when there is no news. Lots of times the big story in the media is about the media like with Katie Couric getting a new job. It's the crescendo of post-modernism in our lifetime, and there seems to be no limit on this crap. I'd love to hear them say, just once, "Sorry folks, there's no news tonight!"

Click to expand...

It begs the question, does the media shape the news, or does the public? Media types will never admit, or most anyhow, that the media shapes the news. Remember, the MSM controls the public more so than the public controls the MSM.

Justify their paycheck even? How sanctimonious... What do you do, exactly?

You'd probably be much happier in a world without free press, wouldn't you Foggy?

Click to expand...

No one is criticizing the free rights of the press. I think we'd all agree that their freedom is a benefit to the citizentry. What we are trying to point out is the power of the press to shape the news.

Justify their paycheck even? How sanctimonious... What do you do, exactly?

You'd probably be much happier in a world without free press, wouldn't you Foggy?

Click to expand...

Now it's "sanctimonious", is it. Back to name-calling.

Too bad you don't like to admit the fact that there just isn't enough meaningful news to fill every single news paper or every single broadcast of every single day; at least not news that's worth the time of day. I'm not the one with the problem here, Newsy, you are.

You go first, Pressboy; are you a Globe stringer, or are still a grad TA?

Free press is great as long as it is responsible to the *whole* public. Being a private business in which only a few people actually receive financial benefit from the news paper or TV outlet, there is an inherent conflict of interest.

In earlier days of the US Republic there was enough of a common ethos to keep all interests in the same basic direction. Today is different, however, with the advent of an age of global change. Printing what is best for the public is getting more difficult all the time because there is still a major debate going on about "who" the public is: local, state, national, world. The result is that more and more often the press publishes filler or self-serving stuff, good for a few but not the best for all.

A free press has a major responsibility to the public which some have misguided over the years. A free press is only as good as the morality and ethics of the people who produce the news that's given to the public. If you don't see that there is no point in discussing it any further.

Too bad you don't like to admit the fact that there just isn't enough meaningful news to fill every single news paper or every single broadcast of every single day; at least not news that's worth the time of day. I'm not the one with the problem here, Newsy, you are.

You go first, Pressboy; are you a Globe stringer, or are still a grad TA?

Free press is great as long as it is responsible to the *whole* public. Being a private business in which only a few people actually receive financial benefit from the news paper or TV outlet, there is an inherent conflict of interest.

In earlier days of the US Republic there was enough of a common ethos to keep all interests in the same basic direction. Today is different, however, with the advent of an age of global change. Printing what is best for the public is getting more difficult all the time because there is still a major debate going on about "who" the public is: local, state, national, world. The result is that more and more often the press publishes filler or self-serving stuff, good for a few but not the best for all.

A free press has a major responsibility to the public which some have misguided over the years. A free press is only as good as the morality and ethics of the people who produce the news that's given to the public. If you don't see that there is no point in discussing it any further.

//

Click to expand...

i have things to do today, but rest assured i'll be responding to this drivel a bit later... you clearly have no idea how a newsroom, nor a news cycle works...

i have things to do today, but rest assured i'll be responding to this drivel a bit later... you clearly have no idea how a newsroom, nor a news cycle works...

Click to expand...

Wow, you really know how to scare a guy, don't you.

So, if you make time to respond to "drivel", what does that make you?? Never mind, we already know.

But since you have served notice, you never responded to the fact that the Washington Pasters who lynched Nixon over the Watergate fiasco said amongst themselves: "Well, if the public doesn't buy this, guess we'll all have to go out and real jobs."

The Hard Left's confession that they themselves see their campaign as simply one of killing the reputations of people they don't like. "All the President's Men" (1976): Dustin Hoffman, Bobby Redford, and a cast of slanderers, bearers of false witness, and killers of a president, all for the personal glory of that golden calf of Pulitzer. Short term happiness, at best. Seem to be your idols. Not mine.

So, if you make time to respond to "drivel", what does that make you?? Never mind, we already know.

But since you have served notice, you never responded to the fact that the Washington Pasters who lynched Nixon over the Watergate fiasco said amongst themselves: "Well, if the public doesn't buy this, guess we'll all have to go out and real jobs."

The Hard Left's confession that they themselves see their campaign as simply one of killing the reputations of people they don't like. "All the President's Men" (1976): Dustin Hoffman, Bobby Redford, and a cast of slanderers, bearers of false witness, and killers of a president, all for the personal glory of that golden calf of Pulitzer. Short term happiness, at best. Seem to be your idols. Not mine.

//

Click to expand...

Wait, I'm confused, you don't have a problem with Nixon's actions during Watergate? From your post it sounds like Watergate was just an attempt by the left to discredit a president they didn't like?

Wait, I'm confused, you don't have a problem with Nixon's actions during Watergate? From your post it sounds like Watergate was just an attempt by the left to discredit a president they didn't like?

Click to expand...

What Nixon did, trying to cover-up an obvious illegal act by the "plumbers", was wrong, but it by no means was the "constitutional threat" that the Hard Left tarred him with. No way, no how. He was concerned that McGovern was making nice with elements determined to destroy America and the West -- namely, North Korea and Cuba -- and he allowed too much leeway to Liddy and his boys. But, my God, it didn't deserve the political lynching that it turned into. Well, Billy-boy Clinton had to pay for that. What goes around comes around.

I just hope for the sake of the country no idiots are stupid enough to try it again on Bush.

What Nixon did, trying to cover-up an obvious illegal act by the "plumbers", was wrong, but it by no means was the "constitutional threat" that the Hard Left tarred him with. No way, no how. He was concerned that McGovern was making nice with elements determined to destroy America and the West -- namely, North Korea and Cuba -- and he allowed too much leeway to Liddy and his boys. But, my God, it didn't deserve the political lynching that it turned into. Well, Billy-boy Clinton had to pay for that. What goes around comes around.

I just hope for the sake of the country no idiots are stupid enough to try it again on Bush.

Hope that clears up your "confusion".

//

Click to expand...

Just count your blessings for all the things Nixon could have gone to jail for but didn't. A president authorizing a break-in, lying about it, and then firing two Attorneys General for their refusal to fire the special prosecutor doesn't seem American to me. What would Jesus have done?

Just count your blessings for all the things Nixon could have gone to jail for but didn't. A president authorizing a break-in, lying about it, and then firing two Attorneys General for their refusal to fire the special prosecutor doesn't seem American to me. What would Jesus have done?

Click to expand...

Oh, please. Count your blessings that Henry Hyde got all mushy in the knees and let Clinton go with a slap on the wrist.

Jesus would have forgiven Nixon, loved him, and let him carry on with his last two years in office.

What Nixon did, trying to cover-up an obvious illegal act by the "plumbers", was wrong, but it by no means was the "constitutional threat" that the Hard Left tarred him with. No way, no how. He was concerned that McGovern was making nice with elements determined to destroy America and the West -- namely, North Korea and Cuba -- and he allowed too much leeway to Liddy and his boys. But, my God, it didn't deserve the political lynching that it turned into. Well, Billy-boy Clinton had to pay for that. What goes around comes around.

I just hope for the sake of the country no idiots are stupid enough to try it again on Bush.

Hope that clears up your "confusion".

//

Click to expand...

I've asked you before to provide information or links to the charge that McGovern was cavorting with "America's enemies" (as if Cuba and N Korea could have done ANYTHING to us at that time) but you haven't yet. Could you please provide backup to your claims if you can?

I've asked you before to provide information or links to the charge that McGovern was cavorting with "America's enemies" (as if Cuba and N Korea could have done ANYTHING to us at that time) but you haven't yet. Could you please provide backup to your claims if you can?

Click to expand...

HOpe this doesn't turn into a conversation about Nixon...regardless of why I don't think any President should do that it is beneath the office. I was too young to understand what was going on, but everything I learned about it..he needed to go.

Now as far as the press goes I personally have seen the warped view of the press and it used to further an agenda. Now by agenda I do not nessecarily mean a right or left slant but please can someone honestly say that DOESN'T happen all the time. I mean "sell" a story. Look on the Pats main board how many sports writers are writing crap just to "sell" does it have fact in thier story? Many times they leave out FACTS that are well known to achieve thier slant.

I also have been on scene where I KNOW what information the press was given and later read or watched them report the incident and hear basically an outright lie. They have skewed the FACTS to sensationalize it or to make it a story that they think will "sell". I have seen the same thing at trials where they will report on something that came out at trial yet leave out that it was totally disproved with cross examination yet they NEVER mention that even though they were there and I watched them take the notes. Watch the news weather it is local or CNN, sensationalization. Maybe an event like 9/11 or hurricanes (during only) but after the fact? I'm sorry but you will only get the facts THEY WANT you to hear and that they think will "sell".

So spare me the bastion of the "free press" it isn't "free" it is a slave to the almighty dollar and egos. That is a sad reflection that our soceity WANTS these negative stories or at least they are the ones that make the $$$. The days of Edward Marrow are over. Not saying thier aren't good journalist out there I am sure their are ones with integrity and morals, but thier story will never be printed before page 6 or on the news except on late night weekends. So while I don't know what goes on in a news room I sure have had plenty of first hand experience with wathcing news peverted by reporters or an editor or someone in between when it got handed down to the journalist and made it to the public.

Oh, please. Count your blessings that Henry Hyde got all mushy in the knees and let Clinton go with a slap on the wrist.

Jesus would have forgiven Nixon, loved him, and let him carry on with his last two years in office.
//

Click to expand...

Lol, but I bet Jesus would have hung Bill Clinton? I think the reason Clinton "got off" was because they didn't have the votes to convict him in the senate. 50/50 on their best one, 45/55 on the other was it?